Home/D. New Jersey/Lyons v. Construction Specialties, Inc.

Lyons v. Construction Specialties, Inc.

112 F. Supp. 317, 97 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 398, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2766
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedMay 25, 1953
DocketCiv. A. No. 519-51
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 F. Supp. 317 (Lyons v. Construction Specialties, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lyons v. Construction Specialties, Inc., 112 F. Supp. 317, 97 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 398, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2766 (D.N.J. 1953).

Opinion

MODARELLI, District Judge.

George W. Lyons, owner of United States Patent No. 2,174,989 for a cellar closure called a “Hatchway,” brings this action for infringement against John Murray, Michael Murray, and Bernard Murray, a partnership, doing business as Seaboard Metal Products Co., for making and selling cellar doors to defendant, Construction Specialties, Inc. The latter is joined for selling these doors to the building trade.

Two types of doors made and sold by defendants are involved. The first, denoted as Exhibit D or D-7, is said to infringe Claim 4 of plaintiff’s patent. The second, denoted as Exhibit E or D-8, is said to infringe Claims 2 and 3 of plaintiff’s patent. The claims in issue are set forth in the margin.1 Reproductions of these exhibits are included herein. Better procedure requires a consideration first of the question of validity of plaintiff’s patent. Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc. v. Interchemical Corp., 1945, 325 U.S. 327, 330, 65 S.Ct. 1143, 89 L.Ed. 1644.

Plaintiff’s patent is for a cellar hatchway of sheet metal. Its two doors rest on a wedge-shaped frame, the angular side walls of which account for its slope. The frame [321]*321is open on the top surface and flanges bend upward at the opening. The doors which open outward from the center of the frame opening have downwardly turned flanges at their perimeters. The downward flange on th.e doors and the upward flange on the frame at the opening provide a watertight closure which prevents the seepage of water through the hatchway. Lyons’ figures which were filed with the Patent Office are reproduced to illustrate the construction of the hatchway.

[319]*319

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mojonnier Bros. v. Tolan Machinery Co.
129 F. Supp. 731 (D. New Jersey, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 F. Supp. 317, 97 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 398, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyons-v-construction-specialties-inc-njd-1953.